I believe that no vaccinations should be utterly mandatory, but exceptions should be restricted for only the most dire of reasons, such as a medical exemptions. Currently, the option to opt out of vaccinations is, as I have seen other people say, removing the power of herd immunity and is endangering those who require this herd immunity, such as those with weak immune systems, medical problems, and other health deficiencies that prevent themselves from receiving these vaccines. That said, I also recognize the idea of freedom that many people enjoy in being able to decline vaccines. I believe that, although these freedoms are very nice to have, they cannot be kept at the cost of herd immunity and the endangerment of the society.

Please tell me what you think - I am open to other arguments and opinions.

I agree. Freedom of choice is great, but a society with the freedom from crippling diseases is better. Herd immunity is the single best thing humans have achieved in medicine, and this recent movement against vaccines is a slap in the face of every scientist that devoted his life to saving us from those disesases.
The only exemptions should be for those who have diagnosed medical problems that would cause a vaccine to harm them significantly.

I honestly think that the system which we have implemented right now is the most effective, mandatory vaccination against polio, smallpox and other devastating diseases is a must, and people dying or suffering from easily preventable diseases such as these is criminal.

However this being said, I do not think that it should be mandatory to be vaccinated against every disease for which we have a vaccination. People are far more likely to have allergies and asthma today than 100 years ago, this is because as a society we are becoming increasingly clean, which leads to decrease exposure to external particles and pathogens. The immune system is like any working machine, in order to stay on in working order it must be used, and if we are increasingly decreasing the rate at which we use and expose our immune systems to new pathogens the less well equipped it will be to respond to any threats.

Because of this for non-lethal/debilitating diseases such as the flu or chickenpox I don't believe a vaccine should be mandatory, as allowing exposure to these can lead to a strengthened immune system overall.

Yes, I am aware that vaccination does use the immune system and is in itself an immune booster but this is only for a limited part of the immune system, only helper T-cells actually benefit from vaccination as it allows for early recognition and elimination of pathogens before the person actually shows any signs of infection. However this is only a small part of the immune system and other parts should be used as well.

Thus it is my belief that to prevent the next Spanish-Flu from being 3 times as deadly as it otherwise might be we should not over vaccinate ourselves and allow our immune system to build a general innate defense against all pathogens if it is our decision to put ourselves at risk to do so.

First most vaccination uses is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. That causes our immune system to act like we got the disease in most cases. Really there is no such thing as over vaccination, our body are exposed, even as babies, to germs, viruses etc every day. The real reason why the next spanish-flu will be more deadly isn't because we over vaccinate, it will be because people don't vaccinate.

It's difficult to vote on this, I want to say "yes" but then I consider that some percentage of children do have an allergic reaction to immunization. One of my Uncles received the MMR shot at age 5, same as most American kids in the 1960s, but he had a reaction to it and the entire left side of his body was paralyzed.
So, if we area aware that a certain percentage of children will be injured or killed by immunization, it seems more sensible to allow the parent to decide about taking that risk, and weighing the risks and benefits.

Further, vaccinations have been used in the past as a vehicle for testing drugs on humans without their knowledge. This sort of abuse leads to widespread mistrust in immunizations that can persist for decades. Those who do such unethical testing cause irrevocable damage to human trust in medical institutions.

For this reason I would NOT make it illegal to avoid vaccinations, but rather work hard to inform and educate the public about the benefits of immunization. And, punish those who use vaccination as a cover for unethical human drug testing.

I'm not one of those anti-vaxers, and I do think that the moral thing to do is for everyone to vaccinate. However, I'm not willing to go as far as saying that the Government should have the right to inject something into your body without your consent.

That said, having consequences like not allowing registration for unvaccinated children in public schools seems reasonable.

That said, having consequences like not allowing registration for unvaccinated children in public schools seems reasonable.

I agree with you in general, but giving the government this sort of coercive leverage, when they already mandate schooling for children, equates to giving the government the authority to inject you with whatever it wants, or it will attack you via financial channels, such as forcing a parents to pay for private schooling or keeping one parent out of the labor market in order to home-school.

If anything, I'd say that the percentage of unvaccinated children, without identifying them publicly, attending a school should be made available to parents so that they can assess the risks themselves.

The anti-vaxers are acting stupidly, but we've seen bureaucrats and politicians act with at least the same level of stupidity and malice in the past.